British Airways Jet Flies With One Engine
By Associated Press
March 2, 2005, 6:38 AM EST
LOS ANGELES -- A British Airways jet continued on an 11-hour flight to London after losing one of its four engines shortly after taking off from Los Angeles International Airport, officials said.
The pilot made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, about 160 miles short of London, because the Boeing 747 ran low on fuel after facing headwinds that were stronger than expected, the Federal Aviation Administration said.
The FAA and British aviation officials are investigating the Feb. 19 flight to determine whether any regulations were violated.
"We are concerned," said Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman.
The decision not to return Flight 268 after the engine lost power raised concerns about a new European Union law which requires European carriers to reimburse passengers for substantial delays.
U.S. officials said they have no evidence the airline's decision to continue on was influenced by the regulation.
"We would never compromise the safety of our passengers," said British Airways spokeswoman Diane Fung on Monday. "The plane is certified to fly on three engines. It is perfectly safe to do so. The pilots are trained for such situations.
Flight 268 was carrying 351 passengers.
Copyright © 2005, The Associated Press
Cheers,
White Cap
British Airways Jet Flies With One Engine
Moderatoren: Markus, Triple Nickel
-
White Cap
- Senior User
- Beiträge: 2389
- Registriert: Donnerstag 10. Juni 2004, 13:34
- Wohnort: 47652 Weeze
-
conrad
-
White Cap
- Senior User
- Beiträge: 2389
- Registriert: Donnerstag 10. Juni 2004, 13:34
- Wohnort: 47652 Weeze
March 7, 2005
Three Engines (Out Of Four) OK For BA
By Russ Niles
Newswriter, Editor
avweb.com
It would make an interesting slogan: "BA, now flying on three of four engines -- and perhaps getting you there." A lot of people (including the FAA) are wondering if financial considerations have trumped safety, after flying long distances over the arctic and water in a Boeing 747-400 with a bad engine has apparently become an acceptable practice for British Airways. Twice in a week, the same plane lost the same engine early in a long flight and the flights headed for their destinations rather than the closest suitable runway (one flight reached its destination of London). The trend began days after a new European Union rule came into effect guaranteeing compensation for passengers facing long delays or cancellations. The airline denied any link between the new rule and the engine-out procedure. "The plane is as safe on three engines as on four," Capt. Doug Brown, BA's senior manager in charge of the 747 fleet, told reporters. "It was really a customer service issue, not a safety issue." FAA spokesman Greg Martin told AVweb the agency is looking into one of the incidents, which began in Los Angeles.
On Feb. 19, the plane, with 351 passengers aboard, took off from LAX and tower controllers saw sparks shooting from an engine. The crew shut the engine down and circled over the Pacific for 20 minutes while consulting with the airline. Rather than dump fuel and return to LAX (and triggering $150,000 in compensation claims), they set the rudder trim, poured the coal to the remaining three engines and climbed to 29,000 feet for the polar flight to Heathrow -- and almost made it. The lower altitude, headwinds and the drag of the offset rudder burned up the fuel load faster than normal and the pilot had to make an emergency landing in Manchester, about 160 miles short of their destination. A few days later, with a fresh engine, the plane made uneventful flights to Melbourne and Singapore. Three hours into a 14-hour flight from Singapore to London, the same engine was shut down because of oil pressure problems. The crew pressed on and landed at Heathrow about 15 minutes behind schedule.
Cheers,
White Cap
Three Engines (Out Of Four) OK For BA
By Russ Niles
Newswriter, Editor
avweb.com
It would make an interesting slogan: "BA, now flying on three of four engines -- and perhaps getting you there." A lot of people (including the FAA) are wondering if financial considerations have trumped safety, after flying long distances over the arctic and water in a Boeing 747-400 with a bad engine has apparently become an acceptable practice for British Airways. Twice in a week, the same plane lost the same engine early in a long flight and the flights headed for their destinations rather than the closest suitable runway (one flight reached its destination of London). The trend began days after a new European Union rule came into effect guaranteeing compensation for passengers facing long delays or cancellations. The airline denied any link between the new rule and the engine-out procedure. "The plane is as safe on three engines as on four," Capt. Doug Brown, BA's senior manager in charge of the 747 fleet, told reporters. "It was really a customer service issue, not a safety issue." FAA spokesman Greg Martin told AVweb the agency is looking into one of the incidents, which began in Los Angeles.
On Feb. 19, the plane, with 351 passengers aboard, took off from LAX and tower controllers saw sparks shooting from an engine. The crew shut the engine down and circled over the Pacific for 20 minutes while consulting with the airline. Rather than dump fuel and return to LAX (and triggering $150,000 in compensation claims), they set the rudder trim, poured the coal to the remaining three engines and climbed to 29,000 feet for the polar flight to Heathrow -- and almost made it. The lower altitude, headwinds and the drag of the offset rudder burned up the fuel load faster than normal and the pilot had to make an emergency landing in Manchester, about 160 miles short of their destination. A few days later, with a fresh engine, the plane made uneventful flights to Melbourne and Singapore. Three hours into a 14-hour flight from Singapore to London, the same engine was shut down because of oil pressure problems. The crew pressed on and landed at Heathrow about 15 minutes behind schedule.
Cheers,
White Cap
-
Roel
- Junior User
- Beiträge: 161
- Registriert: Mittwoch 4. Februar 2004, 18:28
B747 is designed for flying a normal flight with only 3 engines. So in case 1 fails, it is possible to fly to your destination in a normal way.
Look at this: because the 747 has 4 engines, it has 4 'little' engines. (little in comparison to a B777 for example) If 1 fails, there are 3 engines left. BUT, they only miss 1 little engine, so the difference is small between 3 and 4. (75% thrust is left)
That's why the B777 has 2 very very big engines. If 1 fails, they have enough power to return to an airport in a (kind of) normal way. (50% thrust is left)
(Might sound a little ridiculous, but it's difficult to explain this while writing english on a messageboard )
Look at this: because the 747 has 4 engines, it has 4 'little' engines. (little in comparison to a B777 for example) If 1 fails, there are 3 engines left. BUT, they only miss 1 little engine, so the difference is small between 3 and 4. (75% thrust is left)
That's why the B777 has 2 very very big engines. If 1 fails, they have enough power to return to an airport in a (kind of) normal way. (50% thrust is left)
(Might sound a little ridiculous, but it's difficult to explain this while writing english on a messageboard
)